Posted
by
Soulskill
on Monday April 09, 2012 @03:56PM
from the don't-anger-the-digital-mob dept.

In the wake of the Trayvon Martin tragedy in February, many publications posted articles about "the talk" — a phrase denoting the conversation many black parents have at some point with their children to explain the realities of racism. Last Thursday, writer John Derbyshire penned an article titled "The Talk: Nonblack Version," which codified a similar set of lessons he had given to his children over the years. Unfortunately, those lessons turned out to be horribly racist themselves. "The remarkably long list of how to teach children to stay safe by avoiding black people goes on for two pages and Derbyshire contends is a true lifesaver. There is no irony or clarification that, perhaps, this is a joke, no matter how much you may want to find a disclaimer after you’re done reading." Reader concealment writes to point out that the internet and the media vocalized their disgust quickly and at length, and now Derbyshire has been fired from his position at the conservative National Review magazine (the offending article appeared in a different publication called Taki's Magazine).

When I was a kid, I had a liberal stepdad and a conservative dad. I always thought my dad was just a racist who didn't know what he was talking about. At one point we had it out and so I left my lilly-white hometown to to live with my mom and stepdad in what happened to be a predominantly black school district (which my liberal stepdad considered a great opportunity for me to learn a valuable cultural lesson). After I got a harsh lesson in anti-white racism by getting my ass kicked for about the 10th time at said school, I realized that dad may not be so stupid after all and moved back with in him. It was one of those hard lessons in life about the difference between how things *should* be and how they actually *are*. It's not that my dad wanted to teach me to be some racist cross-burner or something, he just wanted to teach me that racism cuts BOTH ways--and that walking into the wrong school/neighborhood/bar with white skin can be just as dangerous as the vice versa. And it's a lot easier to learn that lesson the easy way than the hard way, believe me.

I like to think that maybe things have changed since I was a kid. I'm not sure, as I learned to avoid these situations altogether by keeping my dumb ass out of where I wasn't wanted.

Of course, no one is ever going to say any of that publicly. You're more likely in the modern world to encounter the Loch Ness monster than any truly honest dialogue on race.

It happens on both sides. Some black parents tell their kids to segregate themselves and establish identity. One question though: If a black scholar wrote an article on how to keep the white man's hands out of your pockets, would they also get fired?

Possibly not. In Bristol, UK, there was a City Councillor (herself of African descent, and oddly, spending most of her time in Florida) who accused another councillor of being a "coconut", which is a racist slur meaning someone who is "black/brown on the outside, and white on the inside". This happened in session (on the official public record). After having several firings of caucasians over implicit racist slurs, this one was practically ignored. It took a big backlash in the public to get the politicians to even begin an investigation. The councillor herself stated "I can't be racist, because I'm black.".In the end, she got a slap on the wrist.

Yes, racism does cut both ways. However, by and large, you don't get to claim racism unless your skin is non-white.

Studies confirm that there is a general racial bias in everyone (succinctly put in Avenue Q's "Everyone's a little bit Racist"). However, being adults, we should pretty much be trying to accept that we're flawed individuals, and get on with making everyone's life a bit better as long as they live up to society's expectations (if you're arrogant, violent and antisocial, don't expect people to like you whatever the colour of your skin).

In the article, there are some actual truths. Basically, in any given social segment of any size, you'll meet all kinds of people. Nice and nasty and everything in between. Treat people as people, because that's who they are.

This is pretty much Citzenship 101 -- you are free to say whatever the hell crazy bullshit you want. The government will not arrest you or hold you hostage for your views.

I, however, as an individual citizen can hate you for what you say. I can exile you from my home, my office and my life. That is my freedom, I can choose not to associate with you, and I can choose not to allow your crazy into the places I control. I cannot, however, call a cop and have you thrown out of the public park where your ranting is bothering me.

But if every business pushes an agenda that is a lie, when does it officially become newspeak? Lets be honest folks...how many here think that the average white person, just minding their own business, would walk through say Harlem or Watts or any other major big city all black neighborhood unscathed? Now what if it were the other way? in most places the worst that would happen to the black man would be a cop asking him what he was doing which is a far cry from ending up beaten or dead. Can't blame it on poverty either because WV is the poorest state in the nation and also has one of the lowest crimes rates as well.

AG Holder has the balls to call us cowards for not talking about race, even after crap like this? Then lets talk about race and the real problems we are seeing in America. there is a good reason why places like Harlem were once considered jewels and are now hellholes, its because 50 years of welfare rewarding destructive behavior like having multiple children by multiple partners combined with a black culture that glorifies violence, drugs, weapons, and the treatment of women as nothing more than sperm receptacles and punching bags has destroyed the black community!

How sad that nobody can speak anything but PC Newspeak anymore, no matter how many facts and figures you can provide to back it up. How many know that the AP refuses to publish the race if the attacker is black and the victim white? How many here even heard about the white kid that was doused in gas and set on fire by black kids shouting "Kill whitey for Trayvon"? How sad is it that Klan has nothing on "thug life!" culture when it comes to killing black people?

Until more are willing to point out that the combination of "thug life!" culture and welfare teaching a complete lack of values is creating the very situations that the racists used to use as propaganda I expect we will see nothing more than PC newspeak while those same elites that publish their PC mags quietly go back to their all white gated communities with armed guards, ignoring the mass slaughters, rapes, and robberies happening thanks to the rise of the violent urban ghettos.

how many here think that the average white person, just minding their own business, would walk through say Harlem or Watts or any other major big city all black neighborhood unscathed?

When I worked for political campaigns in LA I did this all the time. I was never harassed (except by the occassional guard dog behind a fence). There were a few skeevy looking guys that made me nervous (net tattoos and obvious drugs/money exchange), but they never actually bothered or threatened me.

In Beverly Hills on the other hand? I had people track my plates and leave harrassing messages on my home phone number (a number they could only have gotten by looking up the car's registration). I was chased down the street by one crazy asshole with a broom. I had things thrown at me. Lost track of the number of times I talked to the cops.

I'll let you figure out where I felt more safe. (Just to clarify, I'm as white as the driven snow). Maybe you just face up to the fact that you're a raving racist if you really think a white person can't walk safely through the neighborhoods south of the 10.

Lets be honest folks...how many here think that the average white person, just minding their own business, would walk through say Harlem or Watts or any other major big city all black neighborhood unscathed?

The bar I go to most often is a redneck bar smack in the middle of the blackest ghetto in town, I stagger home from there often. The worst that happens walking home is some black guy trying to sell me dope, or a bum begging for spare hope and change. Almost every shooting in the last year has been within six blocks of the place, but it's always either black on black or white on white.

Now what if it were the other way? in most places the worst that would happen to the black man would be a cop asking him what he was doing

Tell that to Travon Martin's mother. And had it been Martin who was a neighborhood watch guy and shot Zimmerman while Zimmerman was unarmed, you can bet your ass he'd have been in jail that very night, probably held without bail.

And it isn't just blacks who fear the police. All poor people fear the police.

Thanks. And NOW do you see why I said AG Holder was full of shit? what we have is a classic case of Newspeak where holder says "We should talk about race' but what he meant was 'You should just agree with everything i say and if you don't why you are a Nazi!" because it was less than 2 posts before i got called a racist, which is this year's pedo apparently, just for pointing out that 50 years of welfare have frankly been worse than an atomic bomb on the black community.

As you pointed out those straight off the boat from Africa, in fact many in my oldest boy's med classes are from Ethiopia and they aren't having a problem at all getting excellent grades. Why isn't "whitey keeping them down" because as you so rightly pointed out REAL racists don't care where they are from, just the color of their skin. Can't say its poverty, look up the stats for WV which is the poorest state in the nation and also has one of the lowest crime rates.

How sad that liberal used to be a good word, it meant "doing something new when the old things didn't work' yet now it means "turn a blind eye to failure as long as they vote democrat" which has enough irony you could choke since it was the dems in the 50s that were ANTI equal rights, going so far as to have a split in their own party.

In the end i could post the numbers, but what is the point? I'd just be accused of somehow manipulating the data (even though the FBI and DoJ already manipulate it by listing Hispanics as white and even with TWO races VS the American black culture the blacks still come out worse across the board for incarceration, rape, murder, and more than 30% against whites compared to less than 6% the other way around) or that it was poverty or they would just play the race card as we saw right here.

But in the end Newspeak can't erase the truth, only twist it. And the truth is 50 years of welfare combined with the combination of a culture that glorifies criminal behavior while condemning those that try to learn and rise above as "Uncle Toms" is frankly doing a better job of destroying blacks than the Klan ever could. And as long as "community leaders" like Sharpton and Jackson can profit from white guilt and pushing that it is "all whitey's fault" then this destruction by their own race will sadly continue.

>>>NPR is "government funded" like oil companies are "government funded".

Really? The oil companies get billions-of-dollars in U.S. Treasury checks like NPR and PBS do? Hmmmm. I. Did not. Know that. (Probably because your statement is false.)

Neither receive billions in U.S. Treasury checks. In "total compensation", including tax breaks and indirect funding, NPR receives a greater percentage of its revenue from the Government than the oil industry, but much, much less in total dollars. NPR's total budget last year was about $200M, so it's really an apple-and-oranges comparison, though.

Of course, you're probably thinking NPR includes PBS, PRI, APT, APM, and PRX, or even CPB which it doesn't. The Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which is actually where the Government money goes directly to be redistributed to the other entities, had a budget of around $420M.

So I'm sure they'd very much welcome a Treasury check of billions, but it's not going to happen anytime soon.

This is such a specious argument. I get a standardized deduction for being alive and a citizen. Therefore the Federal Government is sponsoring everything I buy. After all, the U.S. Gov't could have elected to take that money from me. Ergo, every purchase I make is gov't spending. Apparently, the U.S. Gov't has a penchant for fine cheese, cigars, and port. I knew it! Those guys spend our money on the most wasteful things.

Government-funded NPR.... yeah, no. It's member-station funded for the large majority, and the member stations are funded to 60% (depending on the station) by listener contributions. Unless you have an axe to grind or are willing to delve into the details of their funding, NPR is listener-funded. As for why he was fired: I'd say he was fired for being a moronic news analyst. Not sure that him being black had anything to do with it, but Fox News definitely got some marketing and PR miles out of it.

1. NPR receives very little funding from the government. A high estimate would be about 16% for any individual station. By contrast, Catholic Charities USA claims 67% of its funding is through the government.2. Juan Williams didn't just say something "NPR did not like," he said something incredibly and unapologetically racist. If he had instead said "the US wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are helping the world and the US in particular because it's stabilizing oil production for US consumption and the count of US soldiers injured and killed is a totally acceptable cost" he probably wouldn't have been fired despite the fact that NPR doesn't usually have people say stuff like that on the air.3. Juan Williams wasn't just some one-time-guest on Fox, he was consistently an analyst for Fox for three years prior to joining NPR.

Now, if you were to say his conservative views and appearances on Fox News were a factor in his firing, that may hold some merit, but the implication that NPR disagreeing with him was a raw cause is rather inflammatory and not quite accurate.

I believe the quote from Juan Williams you're looking for is the following:

Look, Bill, I'm not a bigot. You know the kind of books I've written about the civil rights movement in this country. But when I get on the plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they are identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous.

It may be a bit pedantic, but that statement is definitely not racist. You can argue it's bigoted, but I wouldn't say it's racist at all. Muslim is not a race, and if you take his statement at face value, it's not even Muslims that make him nervous. Only Muslims that choose to wear Muslim garb on a plane. Not to mention that saying he gets worried and nervous doesn't seem to me as if it should be very controversial at all. Even the claim about identifying primarily as Muslims is still just presented as what's going through his mind when he sees them.

I'll admit to not having the whole context around the statement, but from what I see he never claimed any of those thoughts were fair to the person in question. It speaks of an instinctive response that could speak as much of the culture of country and the nature of what our mass media exposes us to that it would have become an instinctive reaction. Nor is such a statement without merit in discussion.

If that sort of reaction is normal, perhaps we need to rethink how the topic is presented in the media. Or maybe that information would actually be appreciated by Muslims who might not even have considered how their choice of clothing could influence people's first impression of them. They would still have the right to choose to wear that garb, but perhaps for some of them, it isn't important and they want to avoid it. Regardless, I think discussion of this level should be encouraged rather than squelched.

It's just like "I don't want to offend, but.." to which the person goes to say something offensive, or when someone says "It's not about the money" when it's actually all about the money. People do this all the time and once you spot it, it's pretty difficult to ignore.

I recall the government-funded NPR recently fired a black reporter after he made a guest appearance on FOX and said some things NPR did not like. So to answer your question: Yes.

You're referring to Juan Williams, and the remarks he made on Fox had nothing to do with blacks vs. whites. Williams made remarks to the effect that he feared for his safety when he saw someone who looked (to him) like a Muslim board an airplane, and that anyone who wears "Muslim garb" obviously identifies themselves as a Muslim first and an American second (if they are American at all). He was fired because these espoused beliefs were in conflict with his role as an NPR news analyst, where he was regularly called upon to comment on the Middle East conflict, terrorism, immigration, and other issues that concern Muslims and Muslim Americans.

Williams made remarks to the effect that he feared for his safety when he saw someone who looked (to him) like a Muslim board an airplane, and that anyone who wears "Muslim garb" obviously identifies themselves as a Muslim first and an American second (if they are American at all).

I'd venture to guess, that MANY people that are non-muslims feel that same tinge of fear or apprehension when they see someone get on a plane with "muslim garb".

I know I do....just natural these days, especially when this statement was made by Juan not that long after 9/11. I think it was just a few years after 2011 wasn't it?

But on a larger scale...call it racist or what...but there are stereotypes for reasons. They weren't just made out out of the clear blue sky.

Me? Sure, if I'm walking a street alone (especially in New Orleans) and I see some black teen males walking behind me or coming near me...I keep a very wary eye out on them, and often will cross to the other side of the road and keep an eye out for my options to get to safety in case of a mugging.

Why?

Well,young black teens commit an overwhelming amount of muggings down here. They are often caught on the cameras wearing gang-banger clothes. If I see that, I naturally am apprehensive.

If said young black men, were wearing suits, or dressed in a more normal, non-threatening middle class manner, no...I'd not likely be worried for my safety.

Racist? I dunno....I think it is more like knowing the dangers that can occur around you and being aware of the situation.

If you think that sounds ridiculous, maybe you should reexamine your own stereotypes.

It does sound ridiculous, because you're standing up a straw man- Why not take a minute and respond directly to his argument instead:

Me? Sure, if I'm walking a street alone (especially in New Orleans) and I see some black teen males walking behind me or coming near me...I keep a very wary eye out on them, and often will cross to the other side of the road and keep an eye out for my options to get to safety in case of a mugging.
Why?
Well,young black teens commit an overwhelming amount of muggings down here. They are often caught on the cameras wearing gang-banger clothes. If I see that, I naturally am apprehensive. If said young black men were wearing suits, or dressed in a more normal, non-threatening middle class manner, no...I'd not likely be worried for my safety.

While stereotyping is more often misused than not, it is not ridiculous to be apprehensive if approached while walking alone down Rampart in New Orleans by a group of black teenage teen males dressed in clothing typically worn by gang members.

It is also not ridiculous to be apprehensive if approached by a group of rough-looking rednecks while walking alone in a small East Texas town.

I've been in both situations, and would have been foolish had I not been apprehensive in each. By the same token, had the teenagers been dressed in clothing not similar to that worn by violent gangs, and if the rednecks had been dressed differently and had hidden a couple of (big) tattoos I usually associate with prison life (and had later not idled slowly past me in a pickup truck, sporting a confederate flag decal and plastered with bumper stickers that advocated some pretty rotten stuff for "liberals" and "yankees"), I would have been less concerned about my well-being.

Granted, not all black teenagers on Rampart that walk in groups and wear gang-affiliated clothing are a threat to lone individuals walking nearby, and the same may be said for groups of scruffy-looking rednecks in east Texas that drive beat-up pickup trucks with offensive bumper stickers, but based upon the crime rates in specific areas and in specific situations, there is an elevated risk. In some situations, it is not unreasonable or bigoted to be apprehensive based upon a stereotype.

I recall the government-funded NPR recently fired a black reporter after he made a guest appearance on FOX and said some things NPR did not like. So to answer your question: Yes.

The ideal would be no censorship but of course that doesn't apply to private organizations. They censor things all the time.

Honestly, SHUT UP about "government-funded" already. Combined federal, state and local gov't contributions make up about 5.8% [npr.org] according to their latest figures. The vast majority of their funding comes from individuals, businesses, and universities (amongst others). Your phrasing seems to suggest you think that gov't funding is holding the purse strings... puh-leeze. Would you also say Dunkin' Donuts gov't funded? Or would that be a deliberate misrepresentation of the complete body of facts?

You appear to be claiming that "liberals" always get away with murder and "conversavtives" don't. The problem here is the "always" part. Rather is a counter-example as is Limbaugh and his slut-tirade. So what if Roland Martin got a slap on the wrist? NPR fired their head of fund-raising for privately saying he thought the tea party were a bunch of kooks, and then they went on to fire their CEO in the fall-out. Meanwhile Ann Coulter non-ironically says things like "camel jockey" and "raghead" and doesn't even get a slap on the wrist.

What you've got is a case of confirmation bias. Some people get fired, some don't on all sides.

Like a lot of these types of things, it's really a CLASS issue, not a race issue. There's plenty of predominantly white if not totally white neighborhoods that other white people don't go into because either the neighborhood is a lot more poor than "you," and you're in danger, or the neighborhood is too rich for you, and you'll get the cops called on you. You don't have to have a different color skin if you drive the wrong kind of car, or aren't dressed appropriately. Humans are tribal, and trival societies aren't known for their inclusive nature.

Humans are as tribal as they want to be. In Ireland there has been a HUGE influx of immigrants from places like Eastern Europe and sub Saharan Africa, something like one in six people were born outside the country according to the most recent census. And this is just in the last ten or so years. Backlash? None. Rise of right wing groups? None. Race riots such as have graced the streets of most European countries and the UK? Zero. And if there's one thing guaranteed to bring out any latent xenophobia its a sudden massive influx of foreigners.

If the influx has only been happening for the past 10 years, then it's far too early to make those sorts of claims. Unemployment in Ireland has been steadily rising and they're just now starting to implement the types of austerity measures that have tipped Greece into chaos. When economic times get tough and people start losing their jobs, they start to look for people to blame. Foreign immigrants are an easy target.

You may be right that Ireland will be able to escape the rampant racism and ethnic conflicts that usually occur in situations like that when the economy goes south, but I think it's too early to tell how it will pan out.

I don't know which is sadder, that you're so ashamed of your own heritage or that there is so little memory of actual Irish culture amongst Irish Americans. The national motto is céad míle fáilte, a hundred thousand welcomes, and it holds as true today as ever, despite history, or perhaps because of it. Much has been lost. Northern Ireland is a completely different story mind you, it really is a different culture completely, for reasons I won't go into here.

That's a good point, and actually the clothes are probably more important than the color of the skin, just think about meeting a black guy dressed with a Hugo Boss suit somewhere in downtown and meeting in a bad part of town a white dude with tattoos and pants that hangs down... yes, don't deny it, you are probably going to pre-judge them, but which one are you going to be afraid of?

I have lived all over the US and in parts of Asia, in varying class-dominated areas. In some areas, regardless of what race is the majority, yes there is a danger. But in some areas you are in danger of being robbed, arrested, or even beat up... in the poor black areas, you are in danger of being shot. Yes I know that isn't PC, that it's stereotypical, and it's based on my anecdotal experiences (of having several people I know shot, most fatally, and seeing several strangers shot) etc. but, oh well. I'm going to teach my children whatever I think they need to know to stay safe.

Picture the following situation: a black neighborhood watch volunteer kills an unarmed white kid. Two white preachers jump into the fray and make loud declarations about the racial nature of the killing.

They would be roasted by the media and the mainstream public as racist nutbags, true?

So, why don't the reverends Sharpton and Jackson get the same treatment?

You're again missing the problem entirely. Everyone is aware that there a nutjobs out there who will shoot someone if they thing someone is looking at them funny. The real problem is that in the real-world, the police didn't bother to do anything but to take the shooter at his word that it was self-defense. You can bet your sorry ass that if a black watch volunteer would have killed a white kid, he would have been in prison post-haste.

That's the difference, and that's why all your attempts at moral equivocation are absolutely laughable: in the words of Token Black, "You just don't get it."

Ah, the attempt to put a new meaning to the word racist, and derail the conversation into a discussion on semantics. Cute. You're behind the times though, and even the Stormfront people have settled on just coining a new term, after their attempts to redefine the word failed pretty miserably.

The question is: am I right in my assertion? Based on conviction rates alone of specific sets of crimes that ought to be colorblind (crack convictions, for example), I am. I am interested to hear your counter argument. What you've presented so far is not one.

You probably deserved it. I was white kid #20/34 at a predominately black and hispanic high school and I never heard of anyone catching a beatdown for being white/black/hispanic/whatever. If you caught an asswhupping it was mostly for talking shit, or some retarded beef outside of school. I never got real shit for being white outside of some jokes.

There is two levels of warnings that parents can give. One is "Don't go to the poor (=black) neighborhoods alone at night" which might be at times unjust generalization but I wouldn't try to crucify anyone for giving that kind of advice. The other level is what this guy wrote... None of the quotes are taken out of context here:

Do not settle in a district or municipality run by black politicians.

Before voting for a black politician, scrutinize his/her character much more carefully than you would a white.

If planning a trip to a beach or amusement park at some date, find out whether it is likely to be swamped with blacks on that date

Do not attend events likely to draw a lot of blacks.

etc...

Those aren't necessarily even the most outrageous instructions but there were just so many to choose from...

If you think that white parents should instruct their children to avoid events that might attract a lot of black people and, when choosing a point of time to visit amusement parks, avoid days when there are a lot of blacks visiting... Yes, I think that pretty much makes you a racist and/or very xenophobic. Even if there is statistical correlation with blacks and crime rates, I don't think that you can make a reasonable argument that "Avoid blacks whenever possible" is a proper and rational response.

Also, I can't help but notice this

I am fiercely independent... I'm not going to apologize however for wanting to be comfortably surrounded by people who think and act like me...

Having grown up in Detroit, I know very well the perils of being the wrong race in the wrong area. I have been the victim, and know many people who were also victims of simply being white in the wrong neighborhood (car broke down, made a wrong turn down the wrong block, etc...). A real problem is, that you can't talk about that problem (racism against whites) without being declared a racist. Minorities that have been the victims of legal racism seem to want retribution much more than equality?

Now with that said, I read through the article. Some statements match the way things are, street wise, for a guy that grew up in a city that is largely anti-white. Other statements seem to be something from a Klan rally. I can see why he was canned and why there was backlash.

Your dad taught you to hate differences. The people who beat you up were taught the same thing. That doesn't make your dad right, it just makes your dad and their dads both wrong.

I went to a 100% minority school (I'm white. Even while there, it was 100% minority, as a desegregation plan had me attending classes there while not enrolled there, since so many incorrectly point out the contradiction/inconsistency of a white person talking about their experiences at a 100% minority school). I walked home with a friend one day. Children (up to about age 14) in the neighborhood ran back into their homes and shouted loud enough for everyone to hear "there's a white person walking down the street." If anyone had wanted to do anything bad to me, I'm sure nobody would have seen a thing, despite the fact that almost everyone there at that time walked out of their homes or peeked out the window at me. For most, their school teachers, welfare workers, and the police are the only white people they see. There was no animosity. I'm sure most were just making sure I wasn't a government employee wanting to do them harm.

You are right that there is a difference between "should be" and "is" but that doesn't mean "is" should be taught as if it's somehow "right." The rules are the same everywhere. Blend in or stand out, and standing out can get you in trouble. Doesn't matter if you are in Israel, Texas, Iraq, California, or either of the two unnamed areas you reference in your story.

. I'm not sure, as I learned to avoid these situations altogether by keeping my dumb ass out of where I wasn't wanted.

You found the racism. It isn't "stay away from blacks". It's "stay aware of your surroundings." Racializing it by your dad was wrong. It's incorrect (though generally good enough), even if easier to express. I felt safer as the one unusual white person in a black neighborhood than in many of the hick white areas I've been.

Actually, if you want to make broad judgements, there's a much more significant group that makes up nearly all of the prison population. This group is so ill-adjusted, they are over represented in criminal activity by a factor of nearly 20:1. This group, of course, is men.

If you want to keep it real, you ought be a lot more concerned about why men are such fuck-ups before you worry about what color the men are.

You're using the wrong statistic. You should be giving the odds of someone being arrested given that they're male (1,352 per 100,000) vs. them being arrested given that they're female (126 per 100,000).
Also of note, white male arrest rate (1,775 per 100,000) vs. black male arrest rate (4,347 per 100,000).
Well... looks like the difference is still much greater between men and women, than it is between white and black. As a half-black man, I still wouldn't want to live there, though.

Ron Paul gave a speech last year about his very subject (prisons are mostly filled with blacks). He also argued that the Drug Prohibition is mostly targeted against blacks, and therefore it's a racist policy that needs to be ended.

You're doing your statistics wrong. You need to look at proportions of race in the criminal population verses the general popularion, or at the criminal rate per capita for different racial groups.

It's really more complicated than even that. If you just look at the stats alone, they paint a really unflattering picture of blacks - it's only when you control for socioeconomic factors that things get muddier. Black parents have black children, poor (financially) parents have poor children - even some time after the end of segregation, it continues to have lingering demographic effects.

Segregation also perpetuates these myths. A black child not exposed to white children will not know how to act when exposed, vice versa for while children not exposed to black children. When you realize a man is a man regardless the color of his skin and deserves to be treated like a human with respect, you will go a lot further.

In the interest of completeness it should be pointed out that one of the kids instructed his buddies to "take him [the victim] down," at which point the victim told them to "Remember Trayvon." It was after that they the beating started and one of the kids reportedly said "this is for Trayvon." The article at the Daily Mail states that the police don't know if the attack was racially motivated or if they interpreted "Remember Trayvon" as a racist remark. So to suggest that this was some kind of reverse lynch mob is a bit of a stretch, which of course does not prevent the Daily Mail from labeling it a 'twisted racial revenge' attack.

You know you're attacking the victim, right? And making generalizations about him? And notice how he didn't agree with his father and moved out over it, and yet you're claiming he towed the line? Nice.

Why is one list racist and not the other? Is it because the color of skin each list is warning you about? Isn't that really messed up? I mean, making those kinds of judgments based on skin color is really messed up in the first place. That's a given. But isn't really weird for it to be somehow OK to warn against one skin color but not the other?

One warns about the existence of racism in general, not "all white people". The other said to avoid area where black people live or govern, and to avoid conversation with unknown black people. They're not remotely the same thing with the races reversed, despite many many attempts to pretend they are.

One talk says "Be careful, because racist people will treat you poorly, and bad things can happen because of it". The other one says "Be careful, because this other race is much worse than your race, so stay away from members of that race or bad things can happen. (oh but make one black friend so you don't look racist, although there's so few "good" black people that you'll have heavy competition among whites looking for a black friend)". Do you see the difference now? Seriously, that was the most racist fucking thing I've ever read. I feel dirty.

No, they both explicitly mention skin color, not attitudes like racism. I resent the implication that because I'm white I'm any more racist than anybody else. And most of us (black, white, whatever) are racist to an extent. We all prefer people who 'look like us' or look like the people we're used to.

Now, the 'good black people' section I think is where he starts being really ridiculous. In my experience in living in predominantly black neighborhoods, the number of people who will be decent to you far outnumber the ones who will hurt you for being in the wrong neighborhood. But the ones who will hurt you for being in the wrong neighborhood are numerous enough that a bit of extra wariness is worthwhile. And, in my experience, those neighborhoods do tend to be more violent on average.

I also don't feel this is about people's skin color. I would feel very differently about living in a neighborhood dominated by recent immigrants from Africa, for example. But I strongly suspect the author does. I think the author really is being not-kosher. But his list is not the reason why.

He did not say that one race was better than another. He said that people of one race in a particular country statistically have different behavior patterns than another race in the same country, and then made a few inferences.

Instead of calling him a racist, point out the flaws in his data and logic.

I think it's the content of the end of the list, 10f-h, and the specific calling-out of black people in events where any person should be considered a threat (10i). But I also think that it's very easy to go over that blurry line of what is and is not racist.

As a (white) father of two young boys, I can't imagine a harder conversation. "Remember all that talk about how you have unlimited potential? Yeah, it's all bullshit. Fight the power (but dont' get killed)."

I can't imagine how it looks to have the hope in their eyes die in front of you.

because: usually its in your 30's and 40's that hope is lost (you see the world for the injust place it really is). some people its ealier and some its later. some never see the real world; but most people lose their starry eyed idealism in middle age.

I'll say it again, the world is no disney picture. things eat each other 'out there' and I'm not just talking literally.

lets also admit that we encircle ourselves in lots of layers. your religion, your color, where your parents were born, your weath level, your education level, the area in the country you live, the country itself, the region of the world.

countries and cultures fight all the time. its an us-vs-them theme and it gets repeated at the macro and micro levels.

color is just one of the circles. lets realize that its one but only one and that if we ever solved 'the race issue' how would we solve the country/culture/language/vocation/etc issue? we will ALWAYS draw lines around our groups and groups of groups.

I think its a bad thing, overall. but its how humans and some animals are wired. it just is.

I've never heard of him before, so I went and read the article. After a few paragraphs, I was thinking "this guy is definitely politically incorrect, but does he really deserve to be fired over this?"

Then I read the various sub-points under 10, and yes, it was that bad.

Then I kept reading, and it just got worse.

Wow. It doesn't seem like it would be too hard to turn this into "A Modest Proposal" style satire. By the end, where is he talking about the relative value of "IWSB"s, I mean he is one or two steps away from saying that "IWSB"s should be bought and sold so as to provide the most value for society.

intolerance of intolerance is not the same thing as intolerance itself

Except that it is. You are saying that everyone needs to work your value of tolerance into their belief system, changing that belief system as necessary. You'll get more results if you are clearer about what you want.

You are saying that everyone needs to work your value of tolerance into their belief system, changing that belief system as necessary.

Yes, but tolerance itself is a very different value than "brush your teeth", "eat an apple a day" or "work hard" and "pray to a specific entity in a specific place". Here's why:* tolerance is a value that allows for the peaceful coexistence of a lot of people with lots of different ideas on what is "right. Intolerance is a value that focuses on segregation across many lines.* tolerance is a value focuses on the acceptance of others. intolerance is a value that focuses on the rejection of others.

As a result, intolerance of intolerance is absolutely not the same thing as generic intolerance. And quite frankly, anyone who claims that it is is either is a shining example of why a liberal arts education is important, or ought to live life alone, outside any group.

Murdering a murderer isn't the same as murder itself. Stealing from a thief isn't theft. Creating on your cheating wife isn't cheating. A sarcastic response to an intellectually dishonest comment isn't sarcasm.

Black is white, up is down, and east is west, but you and people who agree with you on this still don't know what you're talking about. Either you believe in being tolerant, or you don't. Believing that intolerance is wrong, except when it applies to intolerance is a dangerous kind of doublethink. Someone who is intellectually honest with himself will know that if you believe it's ok to be intolerant of one thing, it may be ok to be intolerant of another.

The reality is you should tolerate some things and not tolerate others. A blanket enthusiasm for tolerance is completely unwarranted and nonsensical. Do you think you should tolerate rape, or murder, or theft, or any number of other things that are almost universally understood as bad? You're simply holding up a principle that makes no sense.

"There is nothing more painful to me at this stage of my life than to walk down the street and hear footsteps and start thinking about robbery, then look around and see somebody white and feel relieved".

Who said that? Oh yeah...Jesse Jackson. It's not like white people are the only ones who don't want to walk by a 6'3" black teenager in a hoodie at night. Black people don't want to walk by them as well.

Culture and law has been against the black community in America for how many hundreds of years?

How many generations were denied opportunity and a chance to rise above their parents?

How much influence do these factors have on the education and by proxy the crime rates of the black community?

Who created and reinforced these cultural and legal practices which helped to segregate and harm the black community?

Jesse Jackson is lamenting about the very real consequences of the racist policies and agendas in the United States. Many of which lead to higher rates of incarceration because of broken families, lack of education, lack of job opportunities, and poor and manipulative housing conditions.

Because you couldn't possibly believe that blacks commit more crimes because of a natural preponderance, right?

And that right there is the difference difference. Everyone has prejudices, they're driven into our subconscious from day we're born to the day we die. Do you fight against them, consciously avoid letting them affect your decision making, feel shame over them? Or do you rationalize them with bad science, teach them to your children, and pretend that your prejudices are not only accurate, but also just?

This guy gets fired, Tyler Perry gets a pass for describing how his mother always taught him how to act if he got held up by white cops and then suing for discrimination basically because 2 white cops didn't know he was famous. All in the same week, and with no incredulity about the double standard. I love our media. And by love, i mean despise.

... (and I suppose everyone has these kinds of stories) but when I was a teenager I used to live in this really dumpy run-down apartment block. We had befriended a black family that lived downstairs and I used to play basketball frequently with the two boys. They were quite a bit younger than me - I was 16-17 at the time and they were 10-12. Anyway, one day we're playing basketball at the elementary school playground across the street and I said, just joking around, "blah blah blah, my brother" and the youngest kid said to me, almost angrily, "you AIN'T my brother." That really threw me. Here was just a little black kid hanging around with this older white boy from the neighborhood and it was all fun and games up to a point but when I referred to him as "my brother" it was like everything hateful he'd been indoctrinated in - and, yes, it was clear he'd been carefully indoctrinated - about whites came up. I learned reverse-racism was alive and while and I must say it shocked me. One can think everything is hunky-dory and that one is being all culturally enlightened by regularly hanging out with black people, but there is a whole separate side to the culture that is never revealed to you and certainly nothing about how they really tend to feel about whites (which, admittedly, is often justified by narrow-minded and racist whites which an average white kid doesn't ever experience). The racial divide still has a very, very long way to go.

That starts out somewhat coherent and reasonable, and just goes off the deep end. I can't say I feel sorry, at all, for this guy getting fired. He did have one good point, though:

Among your fellow citizens are forty million who identify as black, and whom I shall refer to as black. The cumbersome (and MLK-noncompliant) term “African-American” seems to be in decline, thank goodness. “Colored” and “Negro” are archaisms. What you must call “the ‘N’ word” is used freely among blacks but is taboo to nonblacks.

While it's dangerous to make generalizations across an entire section of the population, especially one that is only defined by a superficial characteristic (I imagine that there are quite a few black people who are seriously offended by the use of the word "nigger" even if it is uttered by another black person), it seems to be largely the social norm that the word is OK to use if you're black, and offensive if you're not. That's a bullshit standard, and it bothers me. Either it's OK for everyone, or it's OK for no one.

Also, he's absolutely right about "African-American" being a stupid term that needs to die. Not only does it fail to recognize that many people feel no particular connection to their ancestry, African or otherwise, but it assumes that every person with dark skin is of African descent. I went to college with a (black) dude who was from Jamaica. Should he have been called "African-American", even though he was neither African, nor American? Stupid.

It isn't a matter of fairness, but of effectiveness. If you want to make a word harmless, you have two choices:

1) Stop using it, and pressure everyone to stop using it. Eliminate it from people's vocabularies. Over a few generations, the word will stop being spoken, and it'll start to sound old fashion. It'll be the kind of thing less and less people even know, and those that do will see it as an anachronism, the kind of thing you only hear in old movies. You will have then succeeded. An example would be the term "Nip" to derogatorily refer to Japanese people. It comes form the shortening of Nipponese which comes from Nippon, the romanticized version of the native name of Japan. In WWII, it was a popular slur, particularly with troops. Now most people don't know what it means (hence my need to explain it) and those that do find it sounds antiquated, and don't use it in normal speech. It is a dead word and thus not used to hurt people.

2) Make the word a term of endearment and your own. Make it something that everyone says as a compliment for a certain set of characteristics/action/whatever. Make it the kind of thing that is ok for everyone to say, everyone to be called, and then the venom has been drained out. It is very ineffective at an insult because it is used so often as the opposite. Geek (and nerd) would be an example. It used to mean a fool or freak, later particularly circus freaks. Then it was used as an insult to overly intellectual/bookish individuals... Who decided to own it. We are now proudly geeks, we are happy about it, it is a good thing to be. People want to be geeks, they like geeks and so on. It doesn't work as an insult because it has become praise. Everyone is free to use it.

Those are the only two effective options. If you have a word and say "Only certain people can use it, it's ok for them and is a good thing, if others use it it is racist/mean/harmful/whatever," then you are being ineffective. You insure it doesn't die out, yet retains its negative connotations and can be used as a slur. So if you want it dealt with you have to pick one, doesn't matter which they'll both work equally well (so the choice should be based on other merits) and go with it.

Not to defend Derbyshire, but, what he said (albeit, in much greater obnoxious detail) isn't all that different from what The Rev. Jesse has noted:

Even Jesse Jackson said a few years ago, "There is nothing more painful to me... than to walk down the street and hear footsteps and start thinking about robbery, then look around and see somebody white and feel relieved."

No, Jesse Jackson said he has a subconscious and shameful (to himself) fear of black youths in certain environments. This guy, said to his kids "Don't go where black people gather, if black people show up at an event leave, you are almost certainly smarter than any random black person you're going to meet, and black people in positions of authority deserve more scrutiny than their white counterparts". You don't see the difference?

I was right there with him until I sensed the twist in the logic right at the end of paragraph 5. Then paragraph 6 took the left turn at Albuquerque and it all when horribly wrong culminating in paragraph 15 identifying "desirable" black people as trophies for powerful/rich white people. At that point I was left open mouthed, not so much at what he said as at the fact he seemed to genuinely believe this was not a racist viewpoint because it was backed up by "facts" of some sort and qualified by "personal experience." Glenn Beck, you've met your match!

I went to the Trayvon Martin March held in the city closest to us. As a white woman, I walked up to the City Hall thinking I'd be on the outside looking in. When I made my leave, I realized that one day, I would have to give my blond-haired, blue-eyed son The Talk--not because he'd be a target for discrimination, but he will no doubt witness acts of racism and discrimination. He will have friends of all races as our once White Bread Town, USA has become much more diverse. I want him to know that I got 'The Talk' from my racist grandmother, someone too stuck in the 30's to understand where the world was going in present-time, and how that was wrong. We talk about the curse we give our kids with religious indoctrination, and that should apply to any views: political, racial, etc.

And if I may add, if given the choice to walk down a dark street with a group of black guys on the left, white boys on the right, I'm hanging a louie. Especially if the white guys are of the frat-boy variety. I've dealt with this first-hand. Walking around on the dangerous North Side of the city I marched in is seen as an incredible risk, but I've never been harassed in doing so. I go there all the time, just for a Puerto Rican bakery, ffs. Walking by a fraternity on a prestigious college campus? They were yards and yards away, and I walked away feeling dirty. From everything I've dealt with in life, 'The Talk' given to black men seems to include more lessons about respect than what the white 'n rich boys get.

by Frederick Douglass, a freed slave and prominent statesmen before, during, and after the War Between the States.

"What shall we do with the Negro?" I have had but one answer from the beginning. Do nothing with us!

Your doing with us has already played the mischief with us. Do nothing with us!

If the apples will not remain on the tree of their own strength, if they are wormeaten at the core, if they are early ripe and disposed to fall, let them fall! I am not for tying or fastening them on the tree in any way, except by nature's plan, and if they will not stay there, let them fall.

And if the Negro cannot stand on his own legs, let him fall also. All I ask is, give him a chance to stand on his own legs! Let him alone!

Having some sort of talk about the realities of racism is a sad necessity for many parts of the US, but that is a separate thing entirely from this guy's List. This is simply an example of a sheltered man who does not know enough to realize he is projecting his personal frustrations onto an entire race, and instead thinks they are somehow rational or justified. Some gems are:

(10g) Before voting for a black politician, scrutinize his/her character much more carefully than you would a white.
(11) The mean intelligence of blacks is much lower than for whites. The least intelligent ten percent of whites have IQs below 81; forty percent of blacks have IQs that low. Only one black in six is more intelligent than the average white; five whites out of six are more intelligent than the average black. These differences show in every test of general cognitive ability that anyone, of any race or nationality, has yet been able to devise. They are reflected in countless everyday situations. “Life is an IQ test.”
(13) In that pool of forty million, there are nonetheless many intelligent and well-socialized blacks. (I’ll use IWSB as an ad hoc abbreviation.) You should consciously seek opportunities to make friends with IWSBs. In addition to the ordinary pleasures of friendship, you will gain an amulet against potentially career-destroying accusations of prejudice.
(15) Unfortunately the demand is greater than the supply, so IWSBs are something of a luxury good, like antique furniture or corporate jets: boasted of by upper-class whites and wealthy organizations, coveted by the less prosperous. To be an IWSB in present-day US society is a height of felicity rarely before attained by any group of human beings in history. Try to curb your envy: it will be taken as prejudice (see paragraph 13).

"Anyone who has read Derb in our pages knows he’s a deeply literate, funny, and incisive writer. I direct anyone who doubts his talents to his delightful first novel, “Seeing Calvin Coolidge in a Dream,” or any one of his “Straggler” columns in the books section of NR. Derb is also maddening, outrageous, cranky, and provocative. His latest provocation, in a webzine, lurches from the politically incorrect to the nasty and indefensible. We never would have published it, but the main reason that people noticed it is that it is by a National Review writer. Derb is effectively using our name to get more oxygen for views with which we’d never associate ourselves otherwise. So there has to be a parting of the ways. Derb has long danced around the line on these issues, but this column is so outlandish it constitutes a kind of letter of resignation. It’s a free country, and Derb can write whatever he wants, wherever he wants. Just not in the pages of NR or NRO, or as someone associated with NR any longer."

At least it does for me. Look, I grew up in a small isolated town of 3000 or so. All white population. Very little overt prejudice against anyone of another race. It just didn't come up. OK, I grow up, go to college, then move to a large (1 million +) city. Since I'm fresh out of college, I live in a poor black neighborhood where I'm threatened at bus stops, had my car torched, had bottles thrown at me and been mugged. 7 incidents of that nature in 7 years there. 6 out of those 7 incidents involved a black person.

So, I wasn't raised to hate anyone. Before I got to the city, I wasn't scared on anyone based on race. After 7 years, however, I had developed a finely tuned paranoia regarding young black men. I avoided them on the subway, bus and especially bus stops. I would cross the street to avoid crowds of them. Each incident (other than the white panhandler who tried to beat me with an umbrella and caused me to start avoiding street people) made that fear a little worse.

Is that fair or rational? No. There were plenty of exceptions, and plenty of decent, friendly black people too, but the little reptile in the back of my brain doesn't work that way. He's all about survival and he frightens easily. He's got nothing else to go on but appearance, and black skin with "African" facial features in a bad neighborhood is a "be scared" signal. And this little reptile in my head, he's got a great memory, but he's not under my conscious control.

As long as there's no fear, I have no problem when I go to lunch with black male co-workers, but then, we're not in a bad neighborhood, my co-workers are all smart, well educated and funny, and while at least one of them could take me apart with one arm, he is as about as threatening as the average teddy bear.

Some people on both sides need "the talk" to be scared. Others of us come by it quite by accident. Sad, but true.

Bingo. When talking heads prattle on about "post-racial America," they unwittingly raise the specter of classism in America, and therefore come perilously close to talking about class struggle. Class struggle is far more taboo than racism. Far, far more. We pretend it doesn't exist because if it does then all sorts of left wing contentions are automatically validated. In America, that is implicitly forbidden. That would be tantamount to validating Marxism.